DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 03/13/2026 claims 1-7 and 9-16 are pending. Independent claims 1 and 9 are amended by adding new limitations not previously presented. Claim 8 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to independent claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The claim objections are withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant, however, new claim objections are made below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the power supply is configured to directly store the power from the battery and/or supply the power to the battery without the power passing through the controller” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitations “wherein the power supply is configured to directly store the power from the battery and/or supply the power to the battery without the power passing through the controller” is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. For examination purposes below this limitation will be interpreted as the controller not located within the charging path of the power supply and the battery, however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 9, the limitation “wherein the power supply is configured to directly store the power from the battery and/or supply the power to the battery without the power passing through the controller” is not supported by the originally filed disclosure.
Specifically, Fig. 2 illustrates wherein the power supply unit (110) stores power from the battery (10) or supplies power to the battery (10) with the power passing through control unit (120). MPEP 2163.03(V) Original Claim Not Sufficiently Described provides guidance for when the claim defines the invention in functional language without sufficiently identifying how the function is performed or how the result is achieved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghantous et al. (USPGPN 20190072618), in view of Burchardt (USPGPN 20220146589), and further in view of Stimek et al. (USPGPN 20210099008).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 9, Ghantous teaches a method and a portable battery charging and discharging apparatus connected to a battery to activate the battery, the portable battery charging and discharging apparatus comprising: a power supply configured to supply the power to the battery (Fig. 1; charging circuitry 112 (e.g., current source and/or voltage source) configured to supply power to the battery 118).
Ghantous teaches a controller configured to charging the battery by continuously supplying the power stored in the power supply to the battery (Fig. 1; ¶[150]; control circuitry 116 configured to charge battery 118 by continuously supplying power from the charging circuitry 112 to the battery 118).
Ghantous teaches the controller configured to discharging the battery (¶[150]).
Ghantous teaches the controller being configured to generate an alternating current (AC) impedance waveform of the battery and determine a remaining life of the battery (¶[122-123]; electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is performed which measures the battery’s AC impedance waveform and determines remaining life of the battery).
Ghantous teaches wherein the remaining life of the battery is stored together with an AC impedance value from the AC impedance waveform, and the stored remaining life and the AC impedance value are used together as a reference data to determine whether the battery has an abnormality (¶[123]; the EIS-derived AC impedance values from the AC impedance waveform are analyzed together with the battery health/age information to determine whether the battery is operating normally or abnormally).
Ghantous teaches wherein the power supply is configured to supply the power to the battery without the power passing through the controller (Fig. 1; the power from charging circuitry 112 flows to battery 118 without power passing through control circuitry 116).
Ghantous teaches wherein the AC impedance waveform is based on a real resistance element and an imaginary reactance element (Fig. 6; the AC impedance waveform is based on real impedance and imaginary impedance).
Ghantous teaches wherein the controller estimates a degree of aging of the battery by comparing the AC impedance waveform of the battery and AC impedance waveforms of other batteries when the AC impedance waveform of the battery is outside of a reference range set based on the AC impedance waveforms of other batteries (¶[57] and ¶[97] teach data from other batteries is obtained and the EIS measurements are used as inputs to compare and determine battery health and aging).
However, Ghantous fails to explicitly teach the power supply is configured to store power discharged from the battery; the controller configured to control storing of the power in the power supply by discharging the battery; and wherein each of the power supply and the controller is connected to a cable having a first end connected to the battery, a second end connected to the power supply and a third end connected to the controller.
Burchardt teaches the power supply is configured to store power discharged from the battery (2nd sentence of ¶ [50] teaches the power converter 150 has an internal battery itself that discharges battery 110 by charging its internal battery [i.e. storing the discharged power from the battery into the power supply’s internal battery]).
Burchardt teaches the controller configured to control storing of the power in the power supply by discharging the battery (Fig. 1; diagnostic device 120 determines to draw power from the battery 110 using the power converter 150, see ¶ [47]).
The power supply having it’s own internal battery allows the diagnostic device to both charge and discharge the EV battery without relying on an external power source connection from the grid. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Burchardt’s power supply with an internal battery to Ghantous’ charging system. The advantage of this being the diagnostic device may deliver and receive DC energy to the coupled battery pack using the power converter with an internal battery (see ¶[46] of Burchardt) thus improving portability and flexibility.
However, Ghantous fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the power supply and the controller is connected to a cable having a first end connected to the battery, a second end connected to the power supply and a third end connected to the controller.
Stimek teaches a cable having a first end connected to the battery, a second end connected to the power supply and a third end connected to the controller (Fig. 1A; a cable having a first end connected to the power storage device 4, a second end connected to the power source 8, and a third end connected to the covert data collection device 10).
Utilizing a Y-split cable with a power supply allows for connection flexibility and power combination. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Stimek’s Y-split cable connection to Ghantous’ charging system. The advantage of this being using the Y-cable allows for easy installation without having to re-run cables (see ¶[36] of Stimek).
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 10, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 9, respectively. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the discharging of the battery comprises automatically discharging the battery at a preset time (Fig. 4g; discharging of the battery is automatically done at a preset time Tdischarge).
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 11, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 2 and 10, respectively. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the preset time corresponds to a time at which the battery enters a rest period (Fig. 4g; after the battery discharges at Tdischarge-- it enters a rest period Trest).
With respect to dependent claim 4, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Ghantous fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4.
Burchardt teaches wherein the controller charges the battery such that a voltage of the battery reaches a reference voltage (¶ [49] teaches in Fig. 2 a current interrupt method is used at a reference voltage).
Charging a system to a known voltage before an AC impedance measurement takes place ensures system stability by knowing the operational state of the system prior to taking the AC impedance measurement. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Burchardt’s reference voltage with an internal battery to Ghantous’ charging system.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 4. However, Ghantous fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5.
Burchardt teaches wherein the reference voltage is set to a voltage that enables AC impedance measurement of the battery (¶ [49] teaches in Fig. 2 a current interrupt method is used at a reference voltage that enables impedance measurement of the battery).
Charging a system to a known voltage before an AC impedance measurement takes place ensures system stability by knowing the operational state of the system prior to taking the AC impedance measurement. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Burchardt’s reference voltage with an internal battery to Ghantous’ charging system.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the reference voltage is set to be at least 40 volts (V), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to dependent claim 13, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein an AC impedance of the battery is measured after the chemical reaction is initiated in the battery (It is well known that applying an AC electrical stimulus during EIS causes electrochemical reactions in the battery and the resulting response is used to determine AC impedance values).
With respect to dependent claims 15 and 16, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 9, respectively. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the real resistance element is located along an x-axis of the AC impedance waveform and the imaginary reactance element is located along a y-axis of the AC impedance waveform (Fig. 6; the real impedance (i.e., resistance) is located along the x-axis of the AC impedance waveform and the imaginary impedance (i.e., reactance) is located along the y-axis of the AC impedance waveform).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghantous in view of Burchardt and Stimek, and further in view of Arends (USPGPN 20160285289).
With respect to dependent claim 6, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Ghantous fails to explicitly teach the size of the battery charging and discharging apparatus is determined from a current magnitude and capacity of the battery.
Arends teaches a size of the battery charging and discharging apparatus is determined according to a current magnitude and a capacity of the battery (¶ [13] teaches a battery charger that is sized based on the C-rate of a battery. It is known by one of ordinary skill in the art that C-rate is a ration of the current magnitude and the capacity of a battery).
The size of a charger matching battery capacity and current magnitude is designed so to ensure a safe and efficient recharge. As such, it would have been obvious of one ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus disclosed by Burchardt by adding the apparatus sizing capability in Arends to show that a charging and discharging apparatus size is determined from a current magnitude and a capacity of the battery. The benefit being that a battery may allow for high C-rate charging at a remote location (in ¶ [15] of Arends), a battery can be easily replaced to overcome wear-out conditions experienced over the lifetime of the battery charger (in ¶ [38] of Arends) and charger compatibility with existing batteries (in ¶ [69] of Arends).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghantous in view of Burchardt and Stimek, and further in view of Guimaraes (Brazilian Patent BR-102016015505-A2).
With respect to dependent claim 7, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Ghantous fails to explicitly teach an increase in power level greater than a threshold value enables a chemical reaction to be initiated in a battery.
Guimaraes teaches a power for charging and discharging the battery has a value greater than or equal to a threshold value that enables a chemical reaction to be initiated in the battery (¶ [08] teaches a proper level of power is needed by the battery from the charger in order to initiate a chemical reaction).
A power and voltage threshold is required to initiate a battery's chemical reactions because it must overcome internal resistance, activation energy barriers, and thermodynamic overpotential. Thus, it would have been obvious of one ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus disclosed by Burchardt by power level increase capability in Guimaraes to show that a chemical reaction is initiated in a battery. The benefit being that a system of control and measurement for battery recharge limit based on low costs, reliability, safety, and utility practicality (in ¶ [04] of machine translated Guimaraes).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghantous in view of Burchardt and Stimek, and further in view of Johnson et al. (USPGPN 201702884520).
With respect to dependent claim 14, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Ghantous fails to explicitly teach further comprising a timer configured to transmit a signal for charging or discharging the battery to the controller, and wherein the signal for charging or discharging the battery is transmitted based on a time entered by a user.
Johnson teaches further comprising a timer configured to transmit a signal for charging or discharging the battery to the controller wherein the signal for charging or discharging the battery is transmitted based on a time entered by a user (Fig. 1; input mechanism 45 receives signals from a timer that is actuated by a user for setting charge/discharge cycles, see ¶’s [20, 24, 32]).
A user-configured timer transmits charge and discharge signals to a controller to precisely manage electrochemical reactions, optimize energy costs, and prevent battery degradation. Thus, it would have been obvious of one ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus disclosed by Burchardt by adding the user actuated timer of Johnson. The benefit being that the battery is kept exercised by the charger to avoid weakening of the charge (in ¶ [02] of Johnson).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights